Bipolar symptoms, somatic burden and functioning in older‐age bipolar disorder: A replication study from the global aging & geriatric experiments in bipolar disorder database (GAGE‐BD) project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Global Aging & Geriatric Experiments in Bipolar Disorder Database (GAGE-BD) project pools archival datasets on older age bipolar disorder (OABD). An initial Wave 1 (W1; n = 1369) analysis found both manic and depressive symptoms reduced among older patients. To replicate this finding, we gathered an independent Wave 2 (W2; n = 1232, mean ± standard deviation age 47.2 ± 13.5, 65% women, 49% aged over 50) dataset. DESIGN/METHODS: Using mixed models with random effects for cohort, we examined associations between BD symptoms, somatic burden and age and the contribution of these to functioning in W2 and the combined W1 + W2 sample (n = 2601). RESULTS: Compared to W1, the W2 sample was younger (p < 0.001), less educated (p < 0.001), more symptomatic (p < 0.001), lower functioning (p < 0.001) and had fewer somatic conditions (p < 0.001). In the full W2, older individuals had reduced manic symptom severity, but age was not associated with depression severity. Age was not associated with functioning in W2. More severe BD symptoms (mania p ≤ 0.001, depression p ≤ 0.001) were associated with worse functioning. Older age was significantly associated with higher somatic burden in the W2 and the W1 + W2 samples, but this burden was not associated with poorer functioning. CONCLUSIONS: In a large, independent sample, older age was associated with less severe mania and more somatic burden (consistent with previous findings), but there was no association of depression with age (different from previous findings). Similar to previous findings, worse BD symptom severity was associated with worse functioning, emphasizing the need for symptom relief in OABD to promote better functioning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".